Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44136	2004-04-08 10:27:00	Off Topic: Foreshore and Seabed defined???	Terry Porritt (14)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
228106	2004-04-12 05:43:00	Interesting discussion guys which has wandered a wee bit, but whilst looking at the big picture I wonder if somebody can advise exactly what constitutes an “Indigenous Person” these days? At one end of the scale are the teachings of my day, that the only indigenous races were the Australian Aborigine and the American Red Indian. At the other end of the scale is the definition in the Webster Dictionary of “One born in a country.” As you can see, the term is anything but finite. And another one for your consideration. What actually constitutes a Maori these days, given that the last “Full Blooded” Maori supposedly died in 1940 something? Well, that was The Hon. Peter Tapsell’s reply to a question in parliament some years ago. Given the above facts, it would appear that our Anglo-Saxon X-breads with their inherited arrogance are the root of the perceived racial tensions in this country. When you think about it some of the “Activists” and "Radicals" fit this category perfectly.	B.M. (505)
228107	2004-04-12 07:07:00	<Given the above facts, it would appear that our Anglo-Saxon X-breads with their inherited arrogance are the root of the perceived racial tensions in this country. When you think about it some of the “Activists” and "Radicals" fit this category perfectly.> I really hadnt thought of that. That is a really good point Bob. None of us can escape our genetic inheritance, lord knows I try :) So no matter how much someone with an anglo-saxon/polynesian gene mix tries to ignore one side of their inheritance, they are doomed to failure, it is just not possible.	Terry Porritt (14)
228108	2004-04-12 09:48:00	An interesting point Bob. And Terry I have no quarrel with recognising the cultural and psychological stress suffered by colonised indiginous peoples. Supporting and celebrating local language and culture is good. Otherwise our world will become one big homogenous USA. But going beyond that to try and redress historical wrongs of 100 - 1000 years ago is not going to be embraced by the people who have to pay for it. I think saying "sorry" and listening go a very long way towards reconciliation. Despite John Howard's refusal. Did it occur to you Terry that the very success of the "English" Empire and now the United States may mean that each was right as well as having might? The USSR had might but is no more. What of Nazi Germany - an immensely strong nation? Personally I am still a bit testy about the English treatment of the Scots. Edward Longshanks has a lot to answer for. But I don't really expect apologies, or titles and lands to be returned. Pity. :D The real victims of the past 2000 years in the west have been the Jews. Thrown out of Palestine by the Romans. Pogrom after porom from the Spanish, the French, the Poles, and finally the Nazis. We don't hear much about righting these wrongs. In fact the media much prefer to take the side of the Palestinians despite those poor people having at least the choice of surrounding Arab countries to turn to. Ah well, the world isn't really such a bad place. Have a good day.	Winston001 (3612)
228109	2004-04-12 22:26:00	I’m with you 100% Winston. Just imagine if every country were to “redress the wrongs of the past”. Where would it all end, or indeed start? Doesn’t bare thinking about does it? :( I think it’s high time we all accepted the fact that we’re all genetically modified cross-breads, :D whether we like it or not and when the great double helix is unwound full brothers and sisters can be totally different in make-up. As an aside Winston, my father was born down your way, “Centre Bush”, or it may have been called “Boggyburn” and I can’t for the life of me find those branches of the family tree. You don’t happen to be president of the local Genealogy Society do you? :)	B.M. (505)
228110	2004-04-13 03:08:00	hmm not to lead this post even further afield but (and correct me if im wrong), didnt moses lead the jews out of egypt when ramses finally let them go, and the blazed war across many lands looking for the promised land?? I could be wrong here but this is some history i remeber reading a while back ??	Budda (2736)
228111	2004-04-13 03:52:00	A fairly constructive and good discussion going on. Thank goodness some people haven't contributed :p For me, I define seabed as anything covered with water, regardless of tide levels, and foreshore as anywhere that can be covered by water on high tide. Personally, I follow *[won't specifiy politcal details]*'s policy of one standard for all. I believe in the fact that 21st century brings another level of travel to the world. People will be travelling from one place to another all throughout their livetime. Not many people will remain in their 'ancestor's land' for very long anyway. So, personally, I find it insulting to define "public" land as being the "Maori's land" yes I do believe that we should respect their culture, but it just all gets too furstrating when we find that they claim the money (or land, then sell minutes later), and spend it so unwisely that they are back a few months later trying to claim more land. Do they even respect their ancestors? Yes, there are the minority who are lovely and great. But, *sorry if I cause offence* look at the ethnicity of the majority of people on dole or in prison. Not a good look. Cheers,	~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054)
228112	2004-04-13 03:53:00	Reading back through my post, I think I may have gone a bit far beyond the original discussion, and may of caused offence. I apologise. :8}	~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054)
228113	2004-04-13 09:00:00	Just to reply to Bob . Centre Bush (also called simultaneously, Limehills ) is about 4km west from Boggyburn and is on SH6 being the main road to Queenstown . I'm no genealogist but as a matter of interest work only about 10km from Centre Bush . Am happy to point you in the right direction for people who might know a bit . And Budda: its true that 4000 years ago the Jewish tribes waged war - just as it was waged against them . It was a matter of pure survival in those primitive times . Furthermore, they were earlier enslaved by the Egyptians and only set off for the Promised Land when reluctantly released . So as Bob says, how far back must we go? I agree that global travel will eventually lead to a melding of races and cultures . The pity is that much of our social diversity will disappear and for that reason I am all in favour of languages and minority cultures being protected - otherwise they will be lost for all time .	Winston001 (3612)
228114	2004-04-13 09:10:00	> Interesting discussion guys which has wandered a wee > bit, but whilst looking at the big picture I wonder > if somebody can advise exactly what constitutes an > “Indigenous Person” these days? I define "Indigenous" as the people who were at a particular land from the very start when humans lived on the land. e.g. Maori were first to NZ, thus theyre indigenous. But no, one standard for all, they shouldnt be treated any differently. Good discussion, keep it up :D	~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054)
228115	2004-04-13 10:23:00	Now ~~sy~~ may relate to this, the sort of arrogance Ive been mentioning of the English (and other western nations) forcing their ideas and control on other races was shown in the 1800s with the English, Americans, etc, but particularly the English trying to enforce trade upon the Chinese, which the Chinese didnt particularly want. This trade was primarily opium, the idea was to get the Chinese addicted. Trade was enforced at the point of a gun, reinforced by gunboats. It was not a time that can be recalled with pride by the English. I have forgotten my history of those times now, but maybe sy will know all about the opium wars and the foment it caused in China, setting Chinese against Chinese. We all tend to conveniently forget how the arabs were promised things during the 1st world war in return for their assistance in overthrowing the Turks, and how they were subsequently betrayed. Yet much of todays problems in the Middle East can be traced back to those times. Lawrence was devasted by this betrayal. Western memories are very short generally speaking. Important aspects of history, especially those which do not show the nation in a good light are conveniently ignored and not taught in schools. Among many other peoples, especially those that have strong oral story telling traditions, memories go back a very long way, and are usually quite accurate. (Though I have strong suspicions that there is some local re-writing of history going on, and since it wasnt written down at the time, who can now question it ?) Along the route of Alexander the Greats' path of conquest, it can be read that the locals still talk of those times and Alexander as though it all happened recently, not about 2500 years ago. The British Empire was a force for good in many respects, I mean look how many Indians speak English, and how cricket is the national game :) :) Look how Pakistani/Indian animosity disappears when they play cricket, oh golly me yes. Also in those days, the world was a safe (or safer) place for genteel English ladies to go swanning around holding their parasols, and their gentlemen in their solar topees, going out in the mid-day sun, and giving rise to much hilarity and mirth amongs the locals, ho ho ho ho he he he he. After all they had passports which enabled the bearer to pass without let or hindrance. ( Ive still got an old one of those :) ) We cant put the clock back, that's for sure, it's going to be interesting to see how the current ownership/customary rights/sovereignty debates will turn out.	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4